Lysistrata: definite version?

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
Carolus Raeticus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:46 am
Contact:

Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Carolus Raeticus » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:28 pm

Hello,

I am transcribing a Latin translation of the Lysistrata by Aristophanes. One of the final things to do is checking the speakers. I checked the Latin version against an English Project Gutenberg-version and a German print version (with the German translation dating from the mid 19th century). I noticed that some speaker roles vary. For example, quite a few instances where the Latin version says "Myrrhina", the English and German ones say "Calonice". And in some cases even the English and German do not agree. Is there a "definite" version (in English, German, French, Spanish, Italian. Sorry, no Greek) available on the Internet? And why is there a difference in the first place?

Thank you for your help,

Carolus Raeticus
Sperate miseri, cavete felices.

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Qimmik » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:56 pm

There is no "definite" version of any ancient author. There are editions by various editors who have to make editorial choices in the face of texts transmitted through a haphazard process over a couple of millennia or so. No two editions will be the same. In many of the Greek dramas, the same lines are often found assigned to different characters in different manuscripts. Editors have to come to a decision as to which character should speak the lines.

Two modern editions of Aristophanes:

Oxford Classical Text -- all the plays in two volumes, edited by Nigel Wilson. I'm not sure but I think Lys. will be in the second volume.

Lysistrata, edited separately by Jeffrey Henderson:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... g=en&cc=us

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3237
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by jeidsath » Tue Jul 21, 2015 9:02 pm

Here's the OCT (Greek, sorry): https://archive.org/details/aristophaniscomo02arisuoft

But I believe that the Greek versions would not have had speakers listed. Stage directions are a modern invention. Here's a 15th century manuscript of Plutus (I couldn't find Lysistrata). No speakers are listed for different speeches:

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.asp ... 2182_f005r
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by mwh » Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:33 pm

Ancient manuscripts do fairly often add at least some speaker-names (notae personarum) in the left margin, more often in tragic texts than in comic ones where you get more speaker changes within a single line. But such IDs, whether in ancient or modern texts, have no real authority. What was originally transmitted was the text alone. Speaker change was usually marked (without ID) but even that was not considered part of the text proper.

There’s a scene in the Clouds where I think all editors have got the distribution of parts wrong, and there’s fierce dispute about whether Antigone or Ismene speaks a particular line in the Antigone. It’s a common sort of problem. And of course there’s never a definitive version of any ancient work.

Edit. The characters are identified within the text itself, eliminating or reducing the need for extratextual identification.

Carolus Raeticus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:46 am
Contact:

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Carolus Raeticus » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:15 pm

Oh my, I hadn't exptected this to be that problematic. On the other hand, I don't have to feel guilty for not providing the definite edition. I will compare the speakers with the OCT-editon, however, indicated by jeidsath, and point out major differences between it and the Latin edition I am using. I don't know any Greek, but I should be able to transliterate the speaker names easily enough (provided that the text portions do not vary too much).

Thanks for your help. One never stops learning.

Valete,

Carolus Raeticus
Sperate miseri, cavete felices.

Qimmik
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Qimmik » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:51 pm

The edition linked to is the old OCT, published towards the beginning of the last century. There's a newer one published in 2008, but the older one should be as useful as a benchmark for your purposes. It might be easier to locate the older Loeb edition (there's a new Loeb edition, too), which has a facing-page English translation and should be out of copyright by now--hence, available on-line.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3237
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by jeidsath » Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:04 pm

The Loeb version is available here: https://archive.org/details/AristophanesVolIii

You'll want to download it as a multi-page tiff (and, if you are using Preview on a Mac export that file to PDF for 2-page view).

There is a list of out of print Loebs here: http://www.edonnelly.com/loebs.html
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Publius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 9:33 am

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Publius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:28 pm

For this topic you SHOULD read the latest commentary of Lysistrata, which this year was J. Henderson's Oxford 1987. (This is not the OCT, and definitely not the Loeb which doesn't even have an apparatus criticus, it's a full commentary.) One who usually hits the mark ascribing lines is J. van Leeuwen's 1903 edition. At the end it's not a huge problem. I don't remember the details, but it probably makes no difference whether it's Calonice or Myrrhine saying those lines. Myrrhine has a larger role later on in the play vis-a-vis Cinesias. Then it is clear it's her.

Publius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 9:33 am

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Publius » Thu Jul 23, 2015 5:34 pm

Actually, I do remember the details and it makes no difference whether Calonice or Myrrhine says the lines at that point in the play. Also Jeffrey Henderson's 1987 commentary IS the latest full commentary of the play in English. There might be another more recent in German (although I doubt it) but... it's German (i.e. you need to be a good reader of this language to get all the details.)

Carolus Raeticus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:46 am
Contact:

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Carolus Raeticus » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:27 pm

Salvete,

thank you for the Loeb-hint. I found it to be better (and easier to handle) than the OCT-version. I am now nearing completion of my Latin Lysistrata-version. I also incorporate content-commentary from an English Project Gutenberg-edition to make things easier to understand. In these notes there are two Greek entries, and I would like you to check if my transliteration is correct:
  • [Greek: hippos] = ηιππος
  • [Greek: para prosdokian] = παρα προσδοκιαν
Thank you for your help,

Carolus Raeticus
Sperate miseri, cavete felices.

User avatar
Scribo
Global Moderator
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:28 pm
Location: Between Ilias and Odysseia (ok sometimes Athens).

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Scribo » Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:46 pm

παρὰ προσδοκίαν
ἵππος

Oops sorry, see below. Just copy +pasted first thing.
Last edited by Scribo on Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
(Occasionally) Working on the following tutorials:

(P)Aristotle, Theophrastus and Peripatetic Greek
Intro Greek Poetry
Latin Historical Prose

Carolus Raeticus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:46 am
Contact:

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Carolus Raeticus » Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:34 am

Thank you,

Carolus Raeticus
Sperate miseri, cavete felices.

anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 577
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by anphph » Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:31 pm

Probably a typo for 'παρὰ'?

Carolus Raeticus
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 542
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:46 am
Contact:

Re: Lysistrata: definite version?

Post by Carolus Raeticus » Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:05 pm

Hello,
Scribo wrote:παρὰ προσδοκίαν
ἵππος

Oops sorry, see below. Just copy +pasted first thing.
Sorry for checking this late but I was busy with finishing touches to the Lysistrata-edition.

I am a bit confused. Which version is correct?
  • [Greek: para prosdokian] = παρὰ προσδοκίαν
  • or [Greek: para prosdokian] = 'παρὰ προσδοκίαν
Thank you,

Carolus Raeticus
Sperate miseri, cavete felices.

Post Reply